# Smoking ban versus air quality standard



## mrnuke (Aug 24, 2013)

I accidentally stumbled across Cigar Vault today in Houston. The air inside was impressively clean. It was cleaner than the air inside buildings with smoking bans, such as those at my university. They had a bunch of air exhaust ducts, and air purifiers. Even with five or six persons smoking, the air was crystal clear and pleasant. You couldn't smell the smoke of the person smoking next to you. You can see the smoke from a cigar rise, and disappear into thin air, literally.

This begs the question, is a smoking ban really the correct answer? With so many bans misleadingly called "indoor air quality" legislation, one has to wonder what "air quality" really means. How do you protect non-smokers when smoker-filled rooms have cleaner air? Oh, the irony.


----------



## SeanTheEvans (Dec 13, 2013)

mrnuke said:


> I accidentally stumbled across Cigar Vault today in Houston. The air inside was impressively clean. It was cleaner than the air inside buildings with smoking bans, such as those at my university. They had a bunch of air exhaust ducts, and air purifiers. Even with five or six persons smoking, the air was crystal clear and pleasant. You couldn't smell the smoke of the person smoking next to you. You can see the smoke from a cigar rise, and disappear into thin air, literally.
> 
> This begs the question, is a smoking ban really the correct answer? With so many bans misleadingly called "indoor air quality" legislation, one has to wonder what "air quality" really means. How do you protect non-smokers when smoker-filled rooms have cleaner air? Oh, the irony.


Wait a second, are you suggesting that legislation is supposed to make sense before we enact it? Like thinking an idea all the way through before jumping on a half-baked fixit idea? What country do you really live in?

PS- Congrats on using "irony" correctly. Quite likely the most misused word in the English language.


----------



## Emperor Zurg (May 6, 2013)

mrnuke said:


> This begs the question, is a smoking ban really the correct answer? With so many bans misleadingly called "indoor air quality" legislation, one has to wonder what "air quality" really means. How do you protect non-smokers when smoker-filled rooms have cleaner air? Oh, the irony.


Stop using your brain and thinking logically.
We NEED to ban indoor smoking. All of it. Everywhere.
It's for the children.


----------



## tnlawyer (Jul 17, 2013)

^:lol:


----------



## Incognito11 (Jul 18, 2013)

Emperor Zurg said:


> Stop using your brain and thinking logically.
> We NEED to ban indoor smoking. All of it. Everywhere.
> It's for the children.


:nod: TRUTH! Perfectly describes our legistlation's current moto


----------



## LGHT (Oct 12, 2009)

I've learned some time ago that no matter how logical or illogical decisions are when it comes down to it the decision is typically made to appease the majority. As a result legislators almost never side with the 10-20% of smokers let alone the 2% of cigar smokers.


----------



## tnlawyer (Jul 17, 2013)

LGHT said:


> I've learned some time ago that no matter how logical or illogical decisions are when it comes down to it the decision is typically made to appease the majority. As a result legislators almost never side with the 10-20% of smokers let alone the 2% of cigar smokers.


Sometimes. But sometimes they pass legislation that flies in the face of the majority just because they know better than we do.


----------



## LGHT (Oct 12, 2009)

tnlawyer said:


> Sometimes. But sometimes they pass legislation that flies in the face of the majority just because they know better than we do.


There is no such thing as a legislator that knows better than the common person. At least here in California anyway.


----------



## tnlawyer (Jul 17, 2013)

LGHT said:


> There is no such thing as a legislator that knows better than the common person. At least here in California anyway.


My attempt at sarcasm evidently wasn't very successful :lol:


----------



## Cigar-Enthusiast (Feb 2, 2014)

LGHT said:


> I've learned some time ago that no matter how logical or illogical decisions are when it comes down to it the decision is typically made to appease the majority. As a result legislators almost never side with the 10-20% of smokers let alone the 2% of cigar smokers.


That's unless the legislators are part of the 2%. Vote in fellow BOTL!


----------



## mrnuke (Aug 24, 2013)

Cigar-Enthusiast said:


> That's unless the legislators are part of the 2%. Vote in fellow BOTL!


They're part of the 1%.


----------



## Cigar-Enthusiast (Feb 2, 2014)

mrnuke said:


> They're part of the 1%.


I said that jokingly to LGHT's reference of cigar smokers being the 2%.


----------



## mrnuke (Aug 24, 2013)

Cigar-Enthusiast said:


> I said that jokingly to LGHT's reference of cigar smokers being the 2%.


Sarcasm FAIL on my part.


----------



## Cigar-Enthusiast (Feb 2, 2014)

mrnuke said:


> Sarcasm FAIL on my part.


You beat me at my own game! 
:wink:


----------



## thechasm442 (Jan 21, 2014)

Phase 1. ban smoking indoors and in all public places

Phase 2. everyone wears personal air purification masks, everywhere all the time.

Phase 3. profit?


----------



## Skoallio (Dec 20, 2013)

When Im in a bar (especially a dive bar), the nostalgia of smelling tobacco smoke beats clean air any day.


----------

